使用困难气管插管的预测模型来检查不同的气道管理训练模拟器:一项试点横断面观察研究。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ching-Hsiang Yu, En-Chih Liao, Yat-Pang Chau, Ming-Kun Huang, Ching-Yi Shen, Ding-Kuo Chien
{"title":"使用困难气管插管的预测模型来检查不同的气道管理训练模拟器:一项试点横断面观察研究。","authors":"Ching-Hsiang Yu, En-Chih Liao, Yat-Pang Chau, Ming-Kun Huang, Ching-Yi Shen, Ding-Kuo Chien","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-07413-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, Taiwan's medical education has increasingly emphasized simulated learning, particularly through advanced manikins designed for procedural training, including endotracheal intubation. Although key indicators and predictive techniques for assessing complexity have been documented, their use in evaluating these manikins remains notably lacking.The aim of this study was to appraise the potential association between our devised scoring system and the actual outcome of intubation procedures. Subsequently, this scoring system could potentially serve as an objective yardstick for quantifying the intricacy of training simulators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nineteen post-graduate or emergency medicine trainees participated in this study. Intubation training involved four manikins, each with varying difficulty scores based on neck circumference, thyromental distance, airway obstruction, and Mallampati grade 3/4. Training modules included standard, advanced, and small adult intubation. Independent variables were training models and operator skill levels, while dependent variables included intubation time, success rate, tooth injury, gastric insufflation, uninflated cuff mishaps, perceived difficulty (rated 1-5), and laryngoscopy view quality (rated 1-4).</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>Intubation parameters were recorded for comparison across subgroups. Mean intubation times for models A, B, and D were 42.67 ± 15.32 seconds, 48.73 ± 17.54 seconds, and 50.22 ± 18.40 seconds, with success rates of 89.47%, 78.95%, and 68.42%, respectively. Model 'C' had the highest difficulty score (4.430 points), the longest intubation time (58.84 ± 22.63 seconds, P <.001), and the lowest success rate (57.89%, P <.001), and was rated most difficult by participants. Notably, subsequent intubation attempts showed reduced time and complexity compared to the initial one.In conclusions, our devised scoring metric demonstrated a remarkable congruence with the tangible outcomes of the challenging endotracheal intubation training model. This outcome lends credence to the potential applicability of our formula not only in assessing the intricacy of existing models but also as a guiding benchmark for the innovation and refinement of novel training manikins.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"848"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12144714/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using the predictive model of difficult endotracheal intubation to examine different simulators for airway management training: a pilot cross-sectional observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Ching-Hsiang Yu, En-Chih Liao, Yat-Pang Chau, Ming-Kun Huang, Ching-Yi Shen, Ding-Kuo Chien\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12909-025-07413-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In recent years, Taiwan's medical education has increasingly emphasized simulated learning, particularly through advanced manikins designed for procedural training, including endotracheal intubation. Although key indicators and predictive techniques for assessing complexity have been documented, their use in evaluating these manikins remains notably lacking.The aim of this study was to appraise the potential association between our devised scoring system and the actual outcome of intubation procedures. Subsequently, this scoring system could potentially serve as an objective yardstick for quantifying the intricacy of training simulators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nineteen post-graduate or emergency medicine trainees participated in this study. Intubation training involved four manikins, each with varying difficulty scores based on neck circumference, thyromental distance, airway obstruction, and Mallampati grade 3/4. Training modules included standard, advanced, and small adult intubation. Independent variables were training models and operator skill levels, while dependent variables included intubation time, success rate, tooth injury, gastric insufflation, uninflated cuff mishaps, perceived difficulty (rated 1-5), and laryngoscopy view quality (rated 1-4).</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>Intubation parameters were recorded for comparison across subgroups. Mean intubation times for models A, B, and D were 42.67 ± 15.32 seconds, 48.73 ± 17.54 seconds, and 50.22 ± 18.40 seconds, with success rates of 89.47%, 78.95%, and 68.42%, respectively. Model 'C' had the highest difficulty score (4.430 points), the longest intubation time (58.84 ± 22.63 seconds, P <.001), and the lowest success rate (57.89%, P <.001), and was rated most difficult by participants. Notably, subsequent intubation attempts showed reduced time and complexity compared to the initial one.In conclusions, our devised scoring metric demonstrated a remarkable congruence with the tangible outcomes of the challenging endotracheal intubation training model. This outcome lends credence to the potential applicability of our formula not only in assessing the intricacy of existing models but also as a guiding benchmark for the innovation and refinement of novel training manikins.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"848\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12144714/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07413-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07413-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:近年来,台湾的医学教育越来越强调模拟学习,特别是通过为程序训练设计的先进人体模型,包括气管插管。尽管评估复杂性的关键指标和预测技术已经被记录下来,但它们在评估这些人体模型中的应用仍然明显缺乏。本研究的目的是评估我们设计的评分系统与插管手术的实际结果之间的潜在关联。随后,这个评分系统可以作为一个客观的尺度来量化训练模拟器的复杂性。方法:19名急诊医学研究生或实习生参与本研究。插管训练涉及4个人体模型,每个模型根据颈围、甲状腺距离、气道阻塞和Mallampati 3/4级评分有不同的难度。培训模块包括标准、高级和小型成人插管。自变量为训练模型和操作人员技能水平,因变量包括插管时间、成功率、牙齿损伤、胃灌气、未充气袖带事故、感知难度(评分1-5)和喉镜观察质量(评分1-4)。结果与讨论:记录各亚组插管参数进行比较。A、B、D模型平均插管时间分别为42.67±15.32秒、48.73±17.54秒、50.22±18.40秒,成功率分别为89.47%、78.95%、68.42%。C型患儿插管难度评分最高(4.430分),插管时间最长(58.84±22.63秒)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using the predictive model of difficult endotracheal intubation to examine different simulators for airway management training: a pilot cross-sectional observational study.

Background: In recent years, Taiwan's medical education has increasingly emphasized simulated learning, particularly through advanced manikins designed for procedural training, including endotracheal intubation. Although key indicators and predictive techniques for assessing complexity have been documented, their use in evaluating these manikins remains notably lacking.The aim of this study was to appraise the potential association between our devised scoring system and the actual outcome of intubation procedures. Subsequently, this scoring system could potentially serve as an objective yardstick for quantifying the intricacy of training simulators.

Methods: Nineteen post-graduate or emergency medicine trainees participated in this study. Intubation training involved four manikins, each with varying difficulty scores based on neck circumference, thyromental distance, airway obstruction, and Mallampati grade 3/4. Training modules included standard, advanced, and small adult intubation. Independent variables were training models and operator skill levels, while dependent variables included intubation time, success rate, tooth injury, gastric insufflation, uninflated cuff mishaps, perceived difficulty (rated 1-5), and laryngoscopy view quality (rated 1-4).

Results and discussion: Intubation parameters were recorded for comparison across subgroups. Mean intubation times for models A, B, and D were 42.67 ± 15.32 seconds, 48.73 ± 17.54 seconds, and 50.22 ± 18.40 seconds, with success rates of 89.47%, 78.95%, and 68.42%, respectively. Model 'C' had the highest difficulty score (4.430 points), the longest intubation time (58.84 ± 22.63 seconds, P <.001), and the lowest success rate (57.89%, P <.001), and was rated most difficult by participants. Notably, subsequent intubation attempts showed reduced time and complexity compared to the initial one.In conclusions, our devised scoring metric demonstrated a remarkable congruence with the tangible outcomes of the challenging endotracheal intubation training model. This outcome lends credence to the potential applicability of our formula not only in assessing the intricacy of existing models but also as a guiding benchmark for the innovation and refinement of novel training manikins.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信